New Pima County law requires gun owners to report theft, loss

Pima County supervisors approved a new law Tuesday requiring gun owners to report the theft or loss of their firearms or face a fine of up to $1,000.

The goal is to help law enforcement go after “straw buyers” of guns, in which people purchase firearms on behalf of those who cannot legally own them.

The Board of Supervisors approved the ordinance on a 4-1 vote, with District 4 Supervisor Steve Christy, the sole Republican, dissenting. The ordinance takes effect in 30 days.

“Prohibited possessors routinely obtain firearms from straw purchasers who buy firearms on their behalf or with the intent of selling them illegally,” the ordinance states.

“Reporting requirements assist with the apprehension and prosecution of straw purchasers, preventing or deterring them from claiming that a firearm they bought and transferred to a prohibited possessor was lost or taken in an unreported theft as well as preventing or deterring prohibited possessors from falsely claiming that their firearms were lost or stolen when law enforcement moves to remove them.”

As first proposed, the fine would have been $300, but Pima County Attorney Laura Conover asked the board to increase it to up to $1,000.

This “would afford the County Attorney the discretion to apply different fines depending on the circumstances to mitigate the chance of ‘revictimizing’ an ordinary citizen who loses a firearm or has one stolen by adding on an additional fine for failing to report but allowing stiffer fines for individuals involved in straw purchases,” Conover wrote to the board in a letter Monday.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

“Under the proposed ordinance, reporting a lost or stolen firearm — or a failure to report one — would not invalidate anyone’s right to legally own or possess any firearm. There is no impact on a person’s right to own or possess something which is no longer in their possession,” Conover wrote. “In fact, the proposed ordinance may assist law enforcement in retrieving the missing firearm in order to return it back to the owner’s possession.”

District 1 Supervisor Rex Scott, who asked that the ordinance be put on the agenda, backed Conover’s suggestion.

“The amendment that the county attorney suggested speaks to the prosecutorial discretion that I know the county attorney’s office is going to employ when they are enforcing this ordinance,” Scott said. “The ordinance is designed to combat straw purchases. The ordinance is designed to make sure that prohibited possessors do not obtain weapons. It is not designed … to revictimize people who are actually innocent victims of the theft or loss of their weapon, it is designed to go after straw purchases.”

“There is no risk, no threat, to the Second Amendment or to law-abiding citizens. And it is predictable, but absolutely ridiculous to assert otherwise,” Scott said. “When we consider the toll that is exacted on our society by gun crime and gun violence, this is a small step.”

Christy, who voted against the ordinance, said Tuesday’s vote is a “typical diversion and detraction” attempt to “take the minds and the eyes and the thoughts off the number one problem facing not only Pima County, but the state of Arizona and our country, and that is illegal immigration.”